8.  The applicant has a dual Polish and Austrian citizenship. He was born in 1955 and resides permanently in Austria. At present he is living in Płock, Poland.
9.  In 1989 the applicant entered into a contract with a limited liability company Unirol (hereinafter “Unirol Ltd.”) in Płock. Under the terms of the contract, Unirol Ltd. was to sell in Poland satellite dishes supplied by the applicant from Austria. On 25 March 1994 Unirol Ltd. filed an action with the Płock District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) against the applicant. It sought damages for breach of contract.
10.  On 21 April 1994 the plaintiff modified its claim. On 21 June 1994 the District Court found that, in view of the value of the claim, it was no longer competent to deal with the subject matter and referred the case to the Płock Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki).
11.  On 18 November 1994 the Regional Court exempted Unirol Ltd. from court fees.
12.  On 16 December 1994 the court held the first hearing. At that hearing the applicant submitted a counterclaim, seeking payment of profits to which he was entitled under the terms of the contract. He also applied for an exemption from court fees but to no avail. The hearing was adjourned at the request of Unirol Ltd.
13.  On 17 March 1995 the trial court held a hearing. The plaintiff was absent at that hearing. On 24 March 1995 the plaintiff’s representative informed the court that, due to his illness, he would not be able to appear before it until the end of June. On 14 July 1995 the court adjourned the hearing, as it appeared that Unirol Ltd. had not received the summons. The hearing listed for 4 September 1995 was adjourned due to the illness of Unirol Ltd.’s representative.
14.  The court adjourned three further hearings listed for 12 January, 16 February and 10 May 1996 due to the absence of the plaintiff’s representative. On 2 August 1996 the court held a hearing but the plaintiff’s representative again failed to attend it. The court ordered him to appear at the next hearing on pain of staying the proceedings. The hearings listed for 18 October and 8 November 1996 were adjourned at the request of Unirol Ltd.
15.  On 4 November 1996 the trial court dismissed the applicant’s challenge of the presiding judge. On 20 December 1996 the court held a hearing.
16.  At the hearing held on 28 February 1997 the court closed the examination of the case and informed the parties that the judgment would be delivered on 5 March 1997. On 5 March 1997 the court decided that it would not deliver the final decision and resumed the proceedings.
17.  The hearing listed for 23 May 1997 was cancelled because the judges dealing with the case had withdrawn.
18.  At the hearing held on 14 November 1997 the court heard a witness. Further hearings were held on 8 May and 5 June 1998.
19.  In the meantime, the court had lost part of the case-file. For that reason, the hearing listed for 10 July 1998 was cancelled. On 27 August 1998 the Regional Court ordered that the lost case-file be reconstituted.
20.  On 9 June 1999 the court held a hearing and ordered the parties to specify their claims.
21.  On 15 October 1999 the court held the next hearing and ordered that an expert opinion be obtained. On 12 April 2000 the expert submitted the relevant opinion to the court.
22.  On 20 September 2000 Unirol Ltd. asked the court to appoint another expert. On 8 November 2000 the court held a hearing and heard evidence from the expert.
23.  On 22 November 2000 the Płock Regional Court delivered a judgment. Both parties appealed. On 6 May 2002 Unirol Ltd. asked the Court of Appeal to secure the claim. On 17 May 2002 the Court of Appeal held a hearing.
24.  On 12 June 2002 the Warsaw Court of Appeal gave judgment. On 13 December 2002 copies of the judgment were served on the parties. On 20 and 29 January 2003 respectively, the plaintiff and the applicant lodged their cassation appeals with the Supreme Court. On 27 June 2003 the Supreme Court dismissed both cassation appeals.